SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (651603)4/16/2012 11:37:07 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1583609
 
Eric Holder rode in on the stench of Marc Rich and will ride out on the stench of Al Sharpton.

Holder Meets Sharpton


The attorney general heaps praise on an infamous huckster.

By Andrew C. McCarthy April 14, 2012

nationalreview.com

Eric Holder rode in on the stench of Marc Rich and will ride out on the stench of Al Sharpton.

He’s spent the three-plus years in between branding Americans as “cowards” on race matters; investigating the CIA; coddling CAIR and the New Black Panthers; green-lighting voter fraud; swaddling Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the Bill of Rights; and converting the Justice Department into a full-employment program for the Lawyer Left and its Gitmo boutique. But now he’s hit the big time.

This week, our esteemed attorney general canoodled with Reverend Al at the annual convention of the “National Action Network,” home base for the infamous huckster (that would be Sharpton, not Holder — sorry for any confusion). It is difficult to imagine another attorney general in American history sucking up to such a race-mongering charlatan. The Sharpton record was succinctly catalogued on the Corner by Victor Davis Hanson: inciting murderous riots; slandering Jews, Mormons, and homosexuals; libeling a state prosecutor in the course of championing Tawana Brawley’s fabrication of a racial “hate crime.” Yet there was Holder, ladling cringe-making praise on Sharpton for “your partnership, your friendship, and your tireless efforts to speak out for the voiceless, to stand up for the powerless, and to shine a light on the problems we must solve and the promises we must fulfill.”

Holder is currently in “partnership” with his fast friend on the highly charged Trayvon Martin case. In the days before the nation’s chief federal law-enforcement official lionized the CEO of the nation’s racial-grievance industry, Sharpton had been in Florida, threatening that his “action network” — as in “ direct action,” the community-organizer’s stock-in-trade — would “move to the next level” if authorities in Sanford, Fla., failed to arrest George Zimmerman, the man (or, if you prefer the New York Times Agitator’s Glossary, the “ white Hispanic”) who shot Mr. Martin, a black 17-year-old.

With such notches on his belt as Crown Heights and Freddie’s Fashion Mart, there’s not a lot of mystery involved when the Reverend Al starts conjuring “the next level” of “action.” Still, never what you’d call a master of subtlety, Sharpton — between inciting mobs with demands to “arrest Zimmerman now!” — expressly threatened to “ occupy” the city of Sanford.

The nation’s chief federal law enforcer reacted to these threats of lawlessness with paeans to Sharpton’s besotted history. Beyond that, Holder has been doing plenty of agitating on his own. He bragged to Sharpton’s crowd that he’d ordered his Justice Department to open an investigation into the Martin shooting three weeks ago. He stood ready, he vowed, to file “civil rights” charges if warranted by “the facts and the law.”

Just one problem: Nothing about the known facts comes close to triggering federal jurisdiction. Holder’s “civil rights” hooey is based on fiction: a tale manufactured by NBC News, the flimflam artists who doctored the audiotape of Zimmerman’s call to the police, stoking public outrage with a report that Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin.

The case at hand involves the excruciating loss of a 17-year-old’s life. We do not know exactly what happened. We do know, however, that there is virtually no chance Martin’s race was the cause of his killing. Quite apart from Zimmerman’s lineage — which the Times would be reporting as “Hispanic,” not the newfangled “white Hispanic,” if he had been on the receiving end of fired shots — Zimmerman is of a mixed-race family. Not only does he have black relatives, he has reportedly donated his time to tutor black children. He seems to have used tragically poor judgment in the chain of events that led to Martin’s death, but there is no indication that he is a racist or that his overeager actions were motivated by racial bias. In the context of the case, Martin’s race is sheer happenstance. Its principal relevance is the divisive opening it presents for opportunistic racialists such as Sharpton and Holder.

Race is a dubious constitutional basis for federal intrusion into state law enforcement. The framers saw policing as a state matter– that’s why there was no U.S. Justice Department for the first 83 years of constitutional governance. One needn’t be blind to slavery and structural racism to understand that 21st-century Florida has moved beyond these blights on the nation’s history. There is zero reason to believe that, without Eric Holder hovering, Florida’s police, prosecutors, and citizens could not be trusted to do justice.

There is, moreover, grave reason to believe Holder’s looming involvement will taint the case. In fact, it is already tainting the case.

Put aside the absence of a race angle in this particular case. We know that the Obama-Holder Justice Department practices racial discrimination in enforcing Congress’s race-neutral civil-rights statutes. That is clear from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission’s investigation of the New Black Panthers voter-intimidation case brought by the Bush DOJ but dismissed by Holder’s minions, in consultation with far-left activists, even though the government had already prevailed. Anything Holder’s department does under the rubric of civil-rights enforcement exacerbates this profound offense against our constitutional commitment to equal protection under the law for all citizens, regardless of race.

Furthermore, controversial cases that stir passions and bring out the rabble-rousers demand that high law-enforcement officials provide adult supervision. Not every wrong is a criminal wrong. Responsible prosecutors respect this premise as the Constitution’s safe harbor for the innocent; it is not a mere inconvenience to be maneuvered around. Doing justice means justice for everyone, including the suspect. While it may be news to Mr. Holder, that proposition holds even if the suspect’s name is not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If negligence, even lethal negligence, has occurred, its victims are not without a remedy — they can sue civilly. The criminal law, however, is not the solution to every legal problem, and its invocation where it has no place is monstrous.

The Justice Department’s conduct in the Martin case has been emblematic of Holder’s tenure: an exercise in hardball politics, not faithful law enforcement. In this case, a responsible attorney general would stay his hand. There appears to be no possibility of a federal crime. If such a possibility arises, the generous statute of limitations on civil-rights violations means there is no rush, and the “dual sovereignty” doctrine assures that there will be no double-jeopardy bar against a federal prosecution once the state’s work is done. The feds should just butt out for now: Let Florida’s system work.

And keep quiet in the meantime. We expect grand juries and petit juries to deliberate over cases in secret. The law requires that, because juries are supposed to decide without fear or favor, based on unvarnished evidence not outside agitators. In stark contrast, Holder has thrown the enormous weight of the Justice Department behind the mob. He is not seeking justice; he is pressing his thumb on the scale.

And it’s working. When Trayvon Martin was first shot to death nearly two months ago, state authorities sensibly opted not to charge George Zimmerman with murder. It wasn’t that they were looking to excuse wrongdoing. It was that the evidence was insufficient to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plainly, there was a lack of criminal intent: There was obviously no premeditation; and, alternatively, the facts do not remotely suggest that Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind regardless of human life”(e.g., the savage indifference of a man who fires into a crowd, heedless of the consequences). To the contrary, the known facts indicate (a) Zimmerman’s concern that Martin was acting suspiciously (the depraved do not call the police, as Zimmerman did, before shooting), and (b) a struggle in which Zimmerman may well have been severely beaten and, in any event, would have a strong basis to persuade a jury that he shot in self-defense.

In advancing that argument, Zimmerman would be aided by Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which gives the law-abiding latitude to use guns for protection. The wisdom vel non of “Stand Your Ground” is beside the point. I happen to agree with National Review’s editors that the anti-gun lobby’s attack on Florida’s statute is unpersuasive. But regardless of who is right, ex post facto principles dictate that criminal cases be resolved based on the law in existence at the time of the conduct at issue. A criminal case may be the reason for subsequently changing laws like “Stand Your Ground,” but the Constitution does not permit a criminal case to be shored up by a midstream change in the law.

A prosecutor cannot prove murder without being able to prove mens rea (the state-of-mind element of the offense). To file a murder charge without first establishing mens rea would be unethical and violate due process. So, initially, the Florida authorities did not. But there followed over six weeks of race-baiters fanning the flames of rage. If a U.S. attorney general has any role in such circumstances, it is to call for calm, assure people that the professionals are doing their duty diligently, and urge that the process be allowed to play out. Holder, instead, decided to go Sharpton — except he’s a Sharpton with subpoena power, as well as the raw power to threaten Florida with a civil-rights investigation that would portray its police and prosecutors as racially insensitive obstacles to social justice.



Florida got the message. After the original prosecutor and police chief stepped aside under blistering political heat for declining to indict Zimmerman, the governor appointed Angela Corey, an elected state attorney of apparent ambition, as a special prosecutor. She decided not to continue with the grand jury — which would have required submitting the weak case to members of the community. She has now unilaterally filed a second-degree-murder charge against Zimmerman, based on an affidavit that is so laughably devoid of probable cause that commentators across the ideological divide — from former Reagan Justice Department official Mark Levin to Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz– have panned it as incredibly weak and grossly irresponsible. It is agitprop, not law — it makes murky mention of a “struggle” but meticulously avoids mention of the injuries sustained by Zimmerman; and it invokes the ambiguous but explosive word “profiled” while failing to explain what it means, or to clarify that, absent any racial component (and none is alleged), profiling is perfectly legitimate. Police do it all the time to avoid harassing innocent people.

You can thank Eric Holder. He has a gun to Florida’s head, and he is standing his ground.

It is quite amazing that Holder is in a position to do so. His prior tenure as Clinton deputy attorney general — a record of corrupting the pardon process, politicizing the Justice Department (even to the point of arranging commutations for convicted FALN terrorists), and misleading Congress — made it embarrassingly obvious that he was not fit to be attorney general. Yet, Senate Republicans ignored warnings to this effect and marched in merry lockstep with Democrats to confirm him overwhelmingly.

Now, so predictably, Al Sharpton is smiling. We have no justice and no peace.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.



To: i-node who wrote (651603)4/17/2012 3:00:58 AM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1583609
 
Thus, this paper will look at Bushisms from 1999 to 2004. Each entry has a date and has a reference to the place where it was expressed or published. This file was utilized to document the status of the mental map of our President. Mental map is a reference to Mr. Bush’s geographical education. Our research question was to see "whether he was able to conceptualize correct locations for the countries that he was talking about." In this paper, it will be argued that Mr. Bush’s geographical knowledge is as bad as or even worse than his English. It is believed that a geographically illiterate American president would be very dangerous for the world. In the following section, first the actual excerpts are given then they will be briefly discussed.

Plural Nouns:

"Kosovians can move back in."

-CNN Inside Politics, April 9, 1999.

"Keep good relations with the Grecians."

-Quoted in the Economist, June 12, 1999.

"If the East Timorians decide to revolt, I’m sure I’ll have a statement."

-Quoted by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, June 16, 1999.

The above three quotes are references to ethnic groups mentioned in 1999 before Mr. Bush became the president of the United States. Of course, he is wrong in all three cases. In technical English syntax, this is called "misconstructed plural noun." People from Kosovo are properly called Kosovars. Even elementary school students know that people from Greece are called Greeks. A correct name for the people from East Timor is East Timorese. The above three misnomers may look like harmless and honest mistakes. But, they are not. They represent a whole host of much bigger problems. The problem was not that Mr. Bush assumed to add (ian) to the end of the names of different ethnic groups. Supporters of Mr. Bush may say that not very many Americans, even national political leaders, knew much about Kosovo or East Timor. Then, the question is why he was unable to come up with a correct ethnic name for the people from Greece? A much bigger problem for Mr. Bush was his statement on East Timor. He had absolutely no idea about this place! He told Ms. Dowd of the New York Times, that if an international crisis arose, he will have "a statement" by then. He was and still is highly dependent on his advisors, mostly a group of right wing Republican neocon war mongers. By the way the great majority of his tutors, including his National Security Advisor, are geographically illiterate too. Now, we must imagine the type of foreign policy practiced in the USA by the Bush administration. It is not just "mislabeling", it is damaging to our international relations.

Slovenia:

"The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first-hand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas."

-To a Slovak journalist as quoted by Knight Ridder News Service, June 22, 1999. Bush’s meeting was with Janez Drnovsek, the prime minister of Slovenia.

In this statement, Mr. Bush confuses the two countries of Slovenia and Slovakia. Or, Slovenia became Slovakia. Some people may remember that Slovakia was a part of the former Czechoslovakia that went though a velvet divorce and two countries were created from one. But, how many Americans know anything about Slovenia? We have to remember that this was Mr. Bush, a candidate for the most powerful office in the world talking to the prime minister of another country and calling his country by a wrong name. With a population of 2.0 million, Slovenia, on the other hand, was the first of five republics to secede and receive independence from the former Yugoslavia in 1991.

California and Florida:

"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It’s pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California."

-In Los Angeles as quoted by the Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000.

GOV. BUSH: Because the picture on the newspaper. It just seems so un-American to me, the picture of the guy storming the house with a scared little boy there. I talked to my little brother, Jeb-I haven’t told this to too many people. But he’s the governor of-I shouldn’t call him my little brother–my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas.

JIM LEHRER: Florida.

GOV. BUSH: Florida. The state of the Florida.-

The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, April 27, 2000.

The above two excerpts can be seen as geographical references to the states in the United States. These two indicate President Bush’s difficulties with communication. In the first case, he is actually correct. Western Texas is closer to California than Washington, D. C. However, he is unable to put his statement in a form of proper English. His mental map is badly functioning if he is not briefed on unpredicted media questions. In the second case, he is confusing his little brother with himself and Florida with Texas. These two quotes imply that Mr. Bush is as bad with US geography as with world geography.

Imports:

"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."

-Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000.

This quote is also indicative of our president’s lack of communication abilities. First, we do not know what he means by the word "big." Second, it is not clear whether he knows the meaning of words such as "imports and overseas."

Us and Ourselves:

"But the true threats to stability and peace are these nations that are not very transparent, that hide behind the-that don’t let people in to take a look and see what they’re up to. They’re very kind of authoritarian regimes. The true threat is whether or not one of these people decide, peak of anger, try to hold us hostage, ourselves; the Israelis, for example, to whom we’ll defend, offer our defenses; the South Koreans."

-Media roundtable, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2001.

Here, Mr. Bush attempts and badly fails to simply say what he wanted to say. By the word "ourselves", he means "us" or the Americans. He is saying that authoritarian regimes that are not transparent may take Americans, the Israelis, and the South Koreans as hostages. Although, probably briefed on transparent societies, he still is unable to send a simple message through, indicating how shallow and deplorable his education is.

New Words:

"A lot of times in the rhetoric, people forget the facts. And the facts are that thousands of small businesses-Hispanically owned or otherwise-pay taxes at the highest marginal rate."

-to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Washington, D.C., March 19, 2001.

"I’ve coined new words, like, misunderstanding and Hispanically."

-Radio-Television Correspondents Association dinner, Washington, D.C., March 29, 2001.

In reference to another ethnic group, Mr. Bush has invented the word "Hisponically." A bigger problem here is that not only he made a mistake but he is bragging about it. Saying so what! However, he has forgotten that he also coined the word "misunderestimate." This funny looking word must enter the Guinness book of records. These so-called "new words" are not invented by the creative mind of a president. They are emitted from ignorance and lack of a sound educational attainment. He is just messing up reasonably correct terms.

Mexican Language:

"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican."

-Declining to answer reporters’ questions at the Summit of the Americas, Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001.

Using words such as Brazilian and Mexican in reference to languages is not uncommon by geographically illiterate people. Apparently, Mr. Bush, the former governor of Texas, next door neighbor of Mexico, and a person who speaks Spanish poorly, had no idea that a "Mexican" language does not exist. Although he knows little Spanish, he was unable to pronounce the name of the prime minister of Spain. In this case, Mr. Bush might have been joking with reporters. Instead of Mexican, he could have said "nor in any language."

Theirself:

"Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend theirself."

-On how far we’d be willing to go to defend Taiwan, Good Morning America, April 25, 2001.

The above excerpt is self-explanatory. Mr. Bush is still struggling with himself and themselves.

Spatial Units:

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."

-Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001.

Imagine the President of the most powerful nation in the world in Sweden talking about Africa. The country of Sweden has one of the best educated and geographically literate populations in the world. Mr. Bush made a fool out of himself by the above statement. Educational planners make sure that middle school students learn and define different spatial units of measurement such as a county, country, and continent. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In one of his debates with Vice President Gore held in 2000, Mr. Bush referred to the country of Nigeria as a continent. We do not know that the President could have been briefed before the incident. However, we know that some of his tutors may be bewildered too when talking geographically.

Slavery:

"Do you have blacks, too?"

-To Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001.

"It’s very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America."

-Dakar, Senegal, July 8, 2003.

Here, although George W. Bush is dealing with three different continents, he is talking about slavery. First he has no idea that the largest number of Africans outside Africa is found in the country of Brazil in South America. Then, he thinks that slavery was something similar to the Puritan’s move to the USA in search of religious freedom. This is merely an insult on nearly 25.0 million native Africans who were taken forcefully out of Africa alive and about 75.0 million who lost their lives in the most inhumane process of slavery.

Middle East:

"I assured the prime minister, my administration will work hard to lay the foundation of peace in the Middle-to work with our nations in the Middle East, give peace a chance. Secondly, I told him that our nation will not try to force peace, that we’ll facilitate peace and that we will work with those responsible for a peace."

-Photo opportunity with Ariel Sharon, Washington, D.C., March 20, 2001.

"My administration has been calling upon all the leaders in the-in the Middle East to do everything they can to stop the violence, to tell the different parties involved that peace will never happen."

-Crawford, Texas, Aug, 13, 2001.

"There’s a lot of people in the Middle East who are desirous to get into the Mitchell process. And-but first things first. The-these terrorist acts and, you know, the responses have got to end in order for us to get the framework-the groundwork-not framework, the groundwork to discuss a framework for peace, to lay the-all right."

-Referring to former Sen. George Mitchell’s report on Middle East peace, Crawford, Texas, Aug. 13, 2001.

"My administration has been calling upon all the leaders in the-in the Middle East to do everything they can to stop the violence, to tell the different parties involved that peace will never happen."

-Crawford, Texas, Aug, 13, 2001.

"I understand that the unrest in the Middle East creates unrest throughout the region."

–Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002.

A total of 17 times, in his statements, Mr. Bush referred to the Middle East or places and personalities in this region. Five of these statements contain the name of this region. Although, it is believed to be the most important region in regards to proven fossil fuel reserves, many people including our President do not have a clear concept about this region. Since Middle East is an ethno-centric name, an interesting question can be asked is: middle of what and east of where? Another funny name for this region is Near East. Regardless of what ever this region, in Southwest Asia and North Africa, is called in the "name game" of neocolonialism; it is still the most important place for cheap energy in the whole world. This region alone has nearly 75% of the proven oil reserves. It is believed that the fate of democracy and economy in the world, particularly in Europe, Japan, and the US depends on availability of cheap oil from the Middle East. Yet, the Bush administration attempts uselessly to prove that American occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with oil. This little dirty little word slowly has disappeared from our political arena. On the other hand, nearly 83%, 34 out of 41, of Mr. Bush’s associates have direct ties with oil companies. And, Dr. Rice is the one and only person from academia whose name has appeared on an oil tanker. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration’s arrogant foreign policy in regards to this region is preemptive, unilateral, and illegal mixed with bad theology.

Repeats:

"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than-I say more Muslims-a lot of Muslims have died-I don’t know the exact count-at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there’s been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill."

-Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004.

The above quote is a reference to terrorist acts in the city of Istanbul in the country of Turkey. The fact that can be noted is he repeats one word many times. In this statement the word "Muslims" is repeated three times. In another short statement on January 29, 2003, "Saddam Hussein’s" name is mentioned four times. In a press conference in Oklahoma City, August 29, 2002, in a short sentence, he repeated the word "love" four times. In the same city and on the same day the two words of "we" and "they" together were repeated seven times by Mr. Bush. Apparently, he is trying to emphasize a point or taking time to remember what he was going to say. Thus, indicating his inability to communicate properly.

Iraq:

"Nothing he [Saddam Hussein] has done has convinced me-I’m confident the Secretary of Defense-that he is the kind of fellow that is willing to forgo weapons of mass destruction, is willing to be a peaceful neighbor, that is-will honor the people-the Iraqi people of all stripes, will-values human life. He hasn’t convinced me, nor has he convinced my administration."

-Crawford, Texas, Aug. 21, 2002.

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself."

-Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003.

"Perhaps one way will be, if we use military force, in the post-Saddam Iraq the U.N. will definitely need to have a role. And that way it can begin to get its legs, legs of responsibility back."

-the Azores, Portugal, March 16, 2003.

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the-the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."

-Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003.

"Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq."

-Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003.

"This has been tough weeks in that country."

-Washington, D.C., April 13, 2004.

"[A] free Iraq is essential to our respective securities."

-Washington, D.C., June 1, 2004.

Controlling the second largest amount of proven oil reserves in the world, Iraq weighed heavily on Mr. Bush’s mind. His plot of a preemptive and illegal invasion of Iraq had a lot to do with personal revenge, security of Israel, and oil. So far, more than 1,000 young American soldiers and many thousands of mostly innocent Iraqis have been killed because he is concerned about democracy in this nation. After all, Saddam was brutal. He even "gassed his own people." Actually, Saddam’s own people lived in and around the city of Baghdad and the city of al-Takrit, his birth place. Saddam’s own people lived relatively comfortably in central Iraq. Yes, Saddam murdered his enemies not his own people, the Kurds in the North and Shiahs (Shiites) in Southern parts of the country. On March 16, 1988, known as Bloody Friday, Saddam ordered to gas and kill about 8,000 children and elderly people in the Kurdish city of Halabja. That was during a Republican administration. The Kurds were not Saddam’s people. But, what did the American government did under Mr. Bush’s hero, Ronald Reagan.

Now, Mr. Bush has tried and failed miserably to relate September 11 to Iraq and zero Weapons of Mass Destruction has been found here. These are seen as two of the biggest lies in the history of mankind. His lies caused human sufferings in many different countries including the United States of America. The largest numbers of mostly innocent people in the world in the 21st century have been brutally killed during Bush’s presidency. Let’s not also forget what his agents did in that infamous prison, Abu Ghraib, near Baghdad. What happened here is an important representative of his democracy. Abu Ghraib now should stand as a symbol of Bush’s inhumanity, cruelty and global violence.

Iran:

"Iran would be dangerous if they have a nuclear weapon."

-Washington, D.C., June 18, 2003.

"Secondly, the tactics of our-as you know, we don’t have relationships with Iran. I mean, that’s-ever since the late ’70s, we have no contacts with them, and we’ve totally sanctioned them. In other words, there’s no sanctions-you can’t-we’re out of sanctions."

-Annandale, Va., Aug. 9, 2004.

The Axis of Evil is a label used by Mr. Bush in his State of the Union speech on January 29, 2002. This phrase actually was coined by David Frum and only read to the nation by the President. This name tag was utilized for countries that sponsor terror that included Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. The word "Axis" was used by Hitler to indicate alliance, cooperation, and partnership. Thus, it is so wrong to classify these three unconnected nations under an axis of alliance. In reality, the USA, Great Britain, and Israel fit under this label so perfectly. Together, they have illegally occupied lands belonging to Middle Eastern Nations and have many common goals. In the same State of the Union Address, Mr. Bush’s Statement read "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom. It is true to talk about "Unelected Few" not only in Iran but also in the US. Thus far Mr. Bush’s statements have not been very helpful to the elected authorities in Iran. We have gotten rid of Iran’s two big enemies, the Taliban and Saddam’s regimes. We are also helping the Shiahs (Shiites) in Iraq to build an Islamic Republic similar to that of Iran. The "Unelected Few" in the US and Iran are the most secretive regimes in the world advocating similar theologies.

Mutilated Geography:

"I’ve got very good relations with President Mubarak and Crown Prince Abdallah and the King of Jordan, Gulf Coast countries."

-Washington, D.C., May 29, 2003.

"King Abdullah of Jordan, the King of Morocco, I mean, there’s a series of places-Qatar, Oman-I mean, places that are developing-Bahrain-they’re all developing the habits of free societies."

-Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004.

The above two flubs are the worst of its type in the history of mankind. Nobody so far has been able to make so many clumsy mistakes in only a few short sentences. Nobody has been able like Mr. Bush to mutilate the English language, principles of communication, and geography at the same time. He has a total misunderstanding of the region called the Middle East. The first quote is probably the source a comedy sketch on Saturday Night Live, May 11, 2002. Vice President Cheney and Dr. Rice were trying to teach Mr. Bush about three Abdullahs: King Abdullah of Jordan, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and somebody else by the name of Abdullah from Egypt or Yemen. And, Mr. Bush simply could not comprehend this so-called "complex world." What Mr. Bush has achieved to do is that he mixed everybody’s name and place of origin at the same time. Of course, he used the "Gulf Coast" as a reference to the Persian Gulf, with over ten thousand miles of distance between the two.

In the second excerpt, he has done it again. But, nobody can find any other misunderstanding of the situation like this one. Mr. Bush is the only individual who lists five countries in a sentence and confuses himself and everybody else. He repeats the word "places" and "developing" twice. At the end, the final result is so uninformative, it becomes meaningless. Only in Mr. Bush’s view, the King of Jordan is also the King of Morocco. Did Mr. Bush really know that these two countries were not the same? Did he know that these two countries are located at extreme ends of the Mediterranean Sea, five time zones separating them? It does not matter whether he has the right answers to these questions or not. What matters is that he is making a mockery of geography. He clearly fails to recognize what he was talking about!

Conclusion:

From the above brief discussions, it can be said that George W. Bush tops both President Ford and Vice President Dan Quayle. But, it seems he had some special bond with Mr. Quayle. Probably, as a good student of Mr. Quayle, Mr. Bush has almost perfected the art of geographical illiteracy. Although, this art has destroyed the future roles of Mr. Ford and Mr. Quayle in politics, Mr. Bush is busy creating more nonsense for our ancient discipline and other subjects. He came up with the saddest and worst verbal stumbling about the Middle East. As mentioned before, nobody has been able to mutilate and destroy many principles of geography in a short sentence like George W. Bush. He has mastered the art of geographical illiteracy.
Remembering the fact that 78% of Americans are unable to locate the country of Iraq on a map of the world, according to the National Geographic Society, isn’t Mr. Bush talking in the same tongue of the general population? Doesn’t he have advisors on world affairs? Aren’t some or most of these statements simple innocent trivial bloopers? One could actually argue that our president’s immediate problem is not geography. After being voted out of office, if he has any desire to reeducate himself, he has to learn basics of the English language, principals of communication, history, mathematics, and redo his MBA. He needs a total overhaul of his education and not to rely on advisors with specific agenda. At least, he should learn to read from cue-cards. But, not knowing basic mathematics, English, and history, does not create major international problems. However, a person like George W. Bush with no mental map becomes dangerous to the whole community. He has no problem selling his risky global perspective to a geographically illiterate population.

His on the job training has resulted in a more caricatured map of the world, called cartogram in geography. His tutors, with their specific agenda and shortcomings, are mostly petro-neocon-Zionists such as Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and particularly Dr. Rice. Since day one of his presidency, George W. Bush has been looking for justifications to invade Iraq. He hijacked a national disaster and dropped it in the form of bombs on the head of innocent Iraqi people. His promise of freedom, repeated nearly thirty times in his first debate with Kerry, is funneled down through American WMD and the Abu Ghraib. This is the risk of having one of the most ignorant men and the most geographically illiterate president in the White House.

Dr. IRA KAY has a doctoral degree in geography he can be reached at: drdrkay@yahoo.com.